The policy process

The policy process is always complex (Lester and Stewart, 2000;

Miyakawa, 2000; Hill, 2005). To assist in understanding it, a number of scholars have developed models of the policy process. Major contributions have been made to the understanding of the policy process through the development of Easton’s systems model, the stages model, Kingdon’s streams metaphor, Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework, Baumgartner and Jones’ punctuated equilibrium, and network theory. These are very briefly described next.

Easton (1965) developed a systems model whereby the public policy process is a product of a system, influenced by and influencing the environment in which it operates, receiving inputs and responding with outputs. The inputs are the various issues, pressures, information and the ways in which actors in the system react. The outputs are the policy decisions to act or not to act. The feedback received provides further input, such that the cycle turns back on and regenerates itself. Figure 2.1 depicts this systems model.

Figure 2.1 A Systems Model of Politics and Policy

Source: Reproduced from Birkland (2005, p.202)

Related to Easton’s systems model is the stages model (Jenkins, 1978; Hogwood and Gunn, 1984; Lester and Stewart, 2000;

Heineman, Bluhm, Peterson and Kearny, 2002), whereby policy making is portrayed as taking place step-by-step, as depicted in Figure 2.2, starting off from issue emergence and progressing to the next steps till evaluation.

Figure 2.2 The Stages Model of Policy Making

Source: Reproduced from Birkland (2005, p.225) Inputs:

Feedback influences the political system and the nature of the demands that continue the cycle.

22

Lester and Stewart adopts a similar stages-based approach but presents the stages as a cycle (Figure 2.3) and describes the policy process

“as a “conveyor belt” in which issues are first recognised as a problem, alternative courses of action are considered, and policies are adopted, implemented by agency personnel, evaluated, changed and finally terminated on the basis of their success (actual or perceived) or lack thereof.”

(Lester and Stewart, 2000, p.5)

The results of the evaluation stage feed back into the process.

Figure 2.3 The Policy Cycle

Source: Reproduced from Lester and Stewart (2000, p.5)

Whilst describing, as in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, the policy process as a series of discrete stages resulting in a framework for classifying the activities which occur during the public policy-making process, critics of the stages model of policy-making (see, for instance, Parsons,

1995; John, 1998; Hill, 2005) argue that it can be potentially misleading since “stages are not insulated from each other and there may be a succession of feedback loops between them” (Hill, 2005, p.21). Whilst this criticism is justified, the stages model does simplify the policy process and hence has its merits.

Another model describing the policy process is known as Kingdon’s Streams Metaphor, which is based on the interaction of three streams, namely the problem stream, the policy stream and the politics stream. The problem stream considers the attributes of a problem and whether it is worthy of government intervention. The policy stream provides alternative policy approaches and potential solutions to a problem. The politics stream takes into account the state of politics and public opinion. Kingdon (1995) argues that issues gain agenda status and alternative solutions are selected when the three streams are brought together, providing a window of opportunity and increasing the possibilities of a policy being adopted.

Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, in 1993, developed the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), whereby the policy process, from policy inception through to implementation, involves an “advocacy coalition”

consisting of “actors from a variety of institutions who share a set of policy beliefs” (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p.126). The ACF is influenced by relatively stable parameters (e.g. basic legal structure, fundamental cultural values, social structure, distribution of natural resources, basic attributes of a problem area) and also by dynamic parameters (e.g. changes in public opinion, changes in socioeconomic conditions and technology, policy decisions and impacts from other

24

subsystems), with the interaction between the two promoting or inhibiting policymaking.

Baumgartner and Jones (1993) apply the concept of punctuated equilibrium to the policy process. As reported by Birkland, they argue that

“the balance of political power between groups of interests remains stable over long periods of time, punctuated by relatively sudden shifts in public understanding of problems and in the balance of power between the groups seeking to fight entrenched interests.”

(Birkland, 2005, p.228)

A policy monopoly, defined as a fairly concentrated, closed system of the most significant actors in policy making, underlies Baumgartner and Jones’ concept of punctuated equilibrium in the policy process.

The notion of interacting players is implied in the latter two models of the policy process. The governance model currently prevailing in policy-making brings to the fore this notion through policy networks.

Governance has a number of meanings (Kooiman, 2003; Hall, 2008) bringing along changes in the public sector such that it minimises the role of the formal governmental actors and gives a greater role to the private sector and to non-governmental organisations (Pike Rodriguez-Pose and Tomaney, 2006). As this concept of governance, as opposed to more traditional forms of policymaking, gains ground, policy networks become more important in comprehending the policy process. Policy networks are formed through formal and informal social relationships and shape collaborative action between government, industry and civil society (Atkinson and Coleman, 1992;

Howlett and Ramesh, 1995; Rhodes, 1997; Scott, Baggio and Cooper, 2008), seeking to chart the position and activities of government to achieve a set of common goals.

There appears to be general agreement that the policy process is complex and this is evidenced through the various models, concisely outlined here, that attempt to describe this process. In spite of the variations in these models, one common factor seems to emerge - the policy analytical procedure. It is recognised, echoing Dye (2005), that policies should make a difference, implying that the outcomes of policies or programmes should be evaluated, examined to assess the extent to which they are achieving what they were intended to achieve (effectiveness) and whether they are doing so at an acceptable cost (efficiency). This points to the premise that analysis should inform policy which should be based on evidence. The next sections will focus on the concept of evidence-based policy and on policy analysis.